Green Lantern? They couldn't make him work in a solo film. That's not a good sign. And certainly won't get audiences excited for a movie he's in.

Wonder Woman has yet to be adapted to the big screen. And there's a reason for that. The failed TV show didn't help.

Then there's Superman, who's about to get his own franchise, who knows how that will work out. Hopefully better than Superman Returns.

Batman still needs to be rebooted.

Throwing these characters into a movie, is not the same as Avengers. Iron Man needed to happen. DC needs at least an Iron Man of its own (a successful film franchise going into the crossover film). And preferably one other successful movie.

At this point it's not even evident that they can make a decent Justice League movie.

The idea of putting well-known superheroes together in one big event movie is the same as The Avengers, which is what you were referring to in the beginning. Like I said, MoS has the potential to do what Iron Man did for Marvel, which I think it will. If so, it will be the franchise that you keep talking about. We'll just have to wait and see. And if you don't think that a movie with just Batman and Superman in the same movie doesn't have the potential to bring in big bucks, potentially even more than TA, you're wrong.

Avengers was a highly entertaining, well made movie, I think it will be difficult for JL to be as successful as Avengers.

But, let's not pretend that Avengers was a piece of high art or the greatest comic book movie ever made, as it's 92 % RT rating 1.55 bil. box office and universal praise seems to suggest.

It was marketed as a "event" movie and main objective was to earn money so that more such movies could be made, nothing wrong with that, WB has struggled in past to give entertaining comic book movies (excluding Batman.) that make money.

Would you call Die Hard, Judgement Day, Raiders of the lost Ark, MI-Ghost Protocol or Casino Royale high art? these were all well made action movies that got critically lauded and happened to earn tubs of money. This idea that action movies that don't force themselves down an artsy self indulgent path aren't worthy of the accolades they receive is B.S. Over 250 critics reviewed the Avengers and the vast majority loved it. Its every bit as good a movie as the ratings say it is. that doesnt mean you are not personally allowed to dislike it (hell, i dont think that much of the Hurt Locker or the Kings Speech but they won best pic awards), but to sit there and say that it is undeserving of the praise is bull.

Reboot Batman successfully, have Man of Steel do well, and we'll talk.

Don't count on them rebooting Batman before JL. If you mean reboot him successfully for the movie, then yeah, that's a wait-and-see type of thing. But this is all speculation. The talking comes now. The proof comes later.

They take zero risks, same premise, never bending the genre or anything. Even movies i enjoyed have that light/one-liner/action adventure approach where the hero tries to be funny, gets the good girl, beats the baddie. And not once do you fear the safety of the hero. It's the same old tired formula with Marvel. If you like it then cool but i dont blame the DC fans for getting sick of seeing it.

DC is the same half the time. But they have the Dark Knight Trilogy, Watchmen, V For Vendetta, the upcoming Man Of Steel, Tim Burton's Batman movies were outside the box even if they were a bit retarded. They can do something extremely different with Wonder Woman and Justice League if they choose. Suicide Squad as well. Heck, even Lobo. It's all up to Warner Brothers.

Zero risk? the entire concept of the MCU was a risk in itself. They took a bunch of B-list heroes and turned them into a phenomenon of a movie within 4 years. They did something completely unprecendented and it suceeded on an epic level this past summer.

Same premise? Iron man was a thriller with themes of terrorism. Incredible Hulk was a man fighting an inner beast while on the run from authorities that wanted to abuse that beast. Thor was a pseudo-shakespearan story about sibling rivalry and a redemption story. Cap was a WWII story about a dude who simply refused to quit on anything. The stories are very different, with leads that had very different personalities and goals. The only thing they have in common are that they are origin stories and they are marvel characters.

Don't count on them rebooting Batman before JL. If you mean reboot him successfully for the movie, then yeah, that's a wait-and-see type of thing. But this is all speculation. The talking comes now. The proof comes later.

I can't see them going into JL with an untested Batman.

Some of the other characters, sure. But Batman? You need to make sure that works.

Some of the other characters, sure. But Batman? You need to make sure that works.

I'm not entirely sure about that. Just show that Batman's in the JL and he's more badass than ever, and everything else will follow. The thing about JL is people will be wanting to see these heroes interacting with each other. Batman interacting with Superman and the rest of the JL? That's enough to get a lot of people on board.

They have to go into JL with an unproven Batman because they surely won't have a reboot out in time for 2014, unless they do a rush-job(which I don't see them doing). After people are hooked on Batman from JL, that's when they'll roll out a solo movie for him. By that time they'll have a guaranteed audience.

The thing about solo movies, is that it lets them figure out how to make these characters "work" in live action (harder than people might think). They have yet to do that with Flash and Wonder Woman.

And Green Lantern, really.

If they can't make them work in solo films, I have zero confidence that they can make them work in a crossover film (which is even more complex).

Yep, JL will really have to be where WB proves themselves, also with MoS, but to a much lesser extent. It's understandable to be skeptical in such early stages of development. 3 years is a pretty long time, so we'll see. Heck, we'll probably see in 2 years when they hopefully start showing footage at Comic-Con '14.

And I'm not trying to demean it by saying that. That was some incredible marketing.

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by T"Challa

Would you call Die Hard, Judgement Day, Raiders of the lost Ark, MI-Ghost Protocol or Casino Royale high art? these were all well made action movies that got critically lauded and happened to earn tubs of money. This idea that action movies that don't force themselves down an artsy self indulgent path aren't worthy of the accolades they receive is B.S. Over 250 critics reviewed the Avengers and the vast majority loved it. Its every bit as good a movie as the ratings say it is. that doesnt mean you are not personally allowed to dislike it (hell, i dont think that much of the Hurt Locker or the Kings Speech but they won best pic awards), but to sit there and say that it is undeserving of the praise is bull.

I did not disliked Avengers, but what is irksome is the attitude of some fans that it is better than what it actually is.

Neither of the movies you have listed (Die Hard, MI: Ghost Protocol, Casino Royale) have made a 1.5 billion dollars or have a dedicated fan base defending the movie and claiming it as something that is the best of the genre.

Zero risk? the entire concept of the MCU was a risk in itself. They took a bunch of B-list heroes and turned them into a phenomenon of a movie within 4 years.

Urmm.. movies that were made before Marvel Studios started had already made successful movies about B-list heroes, like Blade and X-Men.

Quote:

Originally Posted by T"Challa

Same premise? Iron man was a thriller with themes of terrorism. Incredible Hulk was a man fighting an inner beast while on the run from authorities that wanted to abuse that beast. Thor was a pseudo-shakespearan story about sibling rivalry and a redemption story. Cap was a WWII story about a dude who simply refused to quit on anything. The stories are very different, with leads that had very different personalities and goals. The only thing they have in common are that they are origin stories and they are marvel characters.

Yes, stories are different but overall the look and feel is same, that could be as there is no sense of danger to Heroes' life, stakes are low and a general grand scale is missing.

Zero risk? the entire concept of the MCU was a risk in itself. They took a bunch of B-list heroes and turned them into a phenomenon of a movie within 4 years. They did something completely unprecendented and it suceeded on an epic level this past summer.

Same premise? Iron man was a thriller with themes of terrorism. Incredible Hulk was a man fighting an inner beast while on the run from authorities that wanted to abuse that beast. Thor was a pseudo-shakespearan story about sibling rivalry and a redemption story. Cap was a WWII story about a dude who simply refused to quit on anything. The stories are very different, with leads that had very different personalities and goals. The only thing they have in common are that they are origin stories and they are marvel characters.

Dude, seriously, after they got lucky with Iron Man they tip-toed their way to Avengers, the remaining films stick within a very confined area in terms of story and scale and don't deviate from it. Can't blame them really but they don't bring anything new to the genre, in fact their feet are planted very much within the genre. And in retrospect, after Iron Man's success they had cushion in case Thor, Hulk and Cap didn't do so well, all they really had to do was not screw up and it shows in the films, in sporting terms they played not to lose rather than played to win. Really at worst Avengers was still probably going to be a successful film even if it was billed as Iron Man and Friends, so the risk really wasn't so big in retrospect after that first weekend in May 2008. Avengers is the first film where the studio actually had the balls to go all out, and in doing so really made everything else except maybe IM1 look really pale in comparison.

Dude, seriously, after they got lucky with Iron Man they tip-toed their way to Avengers, the remaining films stick within a very confined area in terms of story and scale and don't deviate from it. Can't blame them really but they don't bring anything new to the genre, in fact their feet are planted very much within the genre. And in retrospect, after Iron Man's success they had cushion in case Thor, Hulk and Cap didn't do so well, all they really had to do was not screw up and it shows in the films, in sporting terms they played not to lose rather than played to win. Really at worst Avengers was still probably going to be a successful film even if it was billed as Iron Man and Friends, so the risk really wasn't so big in retrospect after that first weekend in May 2008. Avengers is the first film where the studio actually had the balls to go all out, and in doing so really made everything else except maybe IM1 look really pale in comparison.

I think there's some serious "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" going on here by underplaying the risk Marvel took in setting up the MCU. It was extraordinarily risky for Marvel to commit large budgets for movies with an unknown actor starring as a Norse alien god and a WW2 film with a hero draped in the US flag. And if both films failed, a team up involving characters the movie going public previously rejected is certainly no guaranteed success.

I agree that Feige and company played it safe in terms of plotting, but that is true for almost all superhero origin stories. And it appears as though they will be loosening things up to a large degree in phase 2.

I think there's some serious "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" going on here by underplaying the risk Marvel took in setting up the MCU. It was extraordinarily risky for Marvel to commit large budgets for movies with an unknown actor starring as a Norse alien god and a WW2 film with a hero draped in the US flag. And if both films failed? We would likely still be waiting for an Avengers movie.

I agree that Feige and company played it safe in terms of plotting, but that is true for almost all superhero origin stories. And it appears as though they will be loosening things up to a large degree in phase 2.

Exactly. When you put out 3 origin movies out, there's always going to be a latent commonality among them in terms of feel. There's no getting around that. And Feige has repeatedly said the Phase 1 movies were about introducing the characters to the audience, the personalities, what they were about and what drove them. At this, they succeeded greatly. Regardless of what you think of the movies, you can't say you didnt walk out of the theatre without a crystal clear idea of the personalities and mindsets of the heroes and Loki. They had to sacrifice some things in terms of scale and story but their premier goal was accomplished. After that, they pretty much let Joss Whedon go crazy. Andyou can tell from IM3 and what we've heard from Thor 2 that things are going to get bigger and darker now that they have the intros out of the way.

I think there's some serious "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" going on here by underplaying the risk Marvel took in setting up the MCU. It was extraordinarily risky for Marvel to commit large budgets for movies with an unknown actor starring as a Norse alien god and a WW2 film with a hero draped in the US flag. And if both films failed, a team up involving characters the movie going public previously rejected is certainly no guaranteed success.

I agree that Feige and company played it safe in terms of plotting, but that is true for almost all superhero origin stories. And it appears as though they will be loosening things up to a large degree in phase 2.

Nobody is saying that Marvel Studios took zero risk, Movie making is a risky business, but Marvel played it safe, a bit too safe.

Renaming Captain America movie to Captain America: The First Avenger, minimizing all Nazi symbols and references, not showing enough of WW2, keeping the budget at just 150 mil.

Thor was safe in some respects, it was not big in scale.

The movie belonged to fantasy - mythology genre, I doubt that everybody going in to watch Thor movie was aware that they were watching a character in Marvel Comics who happens to be inspired by Norse mythology.

Some would have thought that Thor is like other movies based on mythology, like Clash Of Titans was based on Greek mythology.

Maybe if WB learned to control their budgets, Superman Returns would've had a direct sequel and Green Lantern wouldn't have spilled so much red ink.

I agree, SR and GL were needlessly expensive movies and they had to suffer for that. But then all big budget movies carry more risk, for example Disney's John Carter and WB's Dark Shadows, both failed at B.O.

And that was the point I was initially making that Marvel Studios minimized the risk by limiting the budget to 150 mil which allowed them a safe route to Avengers.

I don't understand the argument that Avengers was risky. They made sure they let audiences get used to each hero ahead of time so it was easier to digest. So everybody was familiar. They kept everything in the same tone even though Cap and Thor were different beasts from the others. As easy to digest as possible.

I see X-Men, Watchmen or Justice League (especially since there's close to no lead up movies going into it) as bigger risks. If they really wanted to get risky with Avengers they would have just put it out without any solos. THAT would have been a huge risk. Or at least after the 1st Iron Man. They wouldn't have made the money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by T"Challa

Zero risk? the entire concept of the MCU was a risk in itself. They took a bunch of B-list heroes and turned them into a phenomenon of a movie within 4 years. They did something completely unprecendented and it suceeded on an epic level this past summer.
Same premise? Iron man was a thriller with themes of terrorism. Incredible Hulk was a man fighting an inner beast while on the run from authorities that wanted to abuse that beast. Thor was a pseudo-shakespearan story about sibling rivalry and a redemption story. Cap was a WWII story about a dude who simply refused to quit on anything. The stories are very different, with leads that had very different personalities and goals. The only thing they have in common are that they are origin stories and they are marvel characters.

I'm talking about the movies themselves. The plots, the concepts, etc. It doesnt matter if New York was a backdrop or World War II was a backdrop, it was all the same idea. Like i said, safe.

The hero is in shape and makes his quick one-liners and the good girl thinks he's hot. The tone is lighter and you never fear the hero will be in any real danger once he puts that suit on. He gets the girl after defeating the baddie in some CG filled action sequences, everybody lives happily ever after til the sequel. There's no creativity or a different way of thinking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce_Begins

Yes, stories are different but overall the look and feel is same, that could be as there is no sense of danger to Heroes' life, stakes are low and a general grand scale is missing.

Exactly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmc

Dude, seriously, after they got lucky with Iron Man they tip-toed their way to Avengers, the remaining films stick within a very confined area in terms of story and scale and don't deviate from it. Can't blame them really but they don't bring anything new to the genre, in fact their feet are planted very much within the genre. And in retrospect, after Iron Man's success they had cushion in case Thor, Hulk and Cap didn't do so well, all they really had to do was not screw up and it shows in the films, in sporting terms they played not to lose rather than played to win. Really at worst Avengers was still probably going to be a successful film even if it was billed as Iron Man and Friends, so the risk really wasn't so big in retrospect after that first weekend in May 2008. Avengers is the first film where the studio actually had the balls to go all out, and in doing so really made everything else except maybe IM1 look really pale in comparison.

This as well.

It works with Iron Man because it's the first movie in that world, it was a great setup. But then Iron Man 2, Incredible Hulk, Thor & Captain America all play it safe afterwards. Repeat the same premise. Each sequel was like on auto-pilot "we gotta do these movies to get to the finish line". The finish line was Avengers. By the time you get to Avengers you dont need character development or a real plot because they can use the excuse "we did that stuff in the solos". But that made Avengers just some action movie with a team...and nothing but explosions and random fighting (verbal and physical). The jokes were flying, but there was nothing more to it.

Other than a fun ride at the movies with some popcorn? it's overrated. I know it's just my opinion compared to yours T''Challa (i respect you if u like it) but i speak for a lot of people as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce_Begins

Nobody is saying that Marvel Studios took zero risk, Movie making is a risky business, but Marvel played it safe, a bit too safe.
Renaming Captain America movie to Captain America: The First Avenger, minimizing all Nazi symbols and references, not showing enough of WW2, keeping the budget at just 150 mil.
Thor was safe in some respects, it was not big in scale.
The movie belonged to fantasy - mythology genre, I doubt that everybody going in to watch Thor movie was aware that they were watching a character in Marvel Comics who happens to be inspired by Norse mythology.
Some would have thought that Thor is like other movies based on mythology, like Clash Of Titans was based on Greek mythology.

This was my point really.

They could have done some cool things with the war theme but they didnt. They could have went way more mythological with Thor and even for a more mature audience at times, but they didnt. It was too stylized and safe for the kids. I hear Thor 2 will actually dive into the norse mythology a lot more and that's a good thing but the first movie played it safe.

Nortons Hulk didn't feel like anything new to me, especially coming off of Iron Man.

I'm not saying Iron Man 3 can't fix things or Dark World or Winter Soldier or a Ruffalo Hulk flick can't do the same. But their origin stories were Marvel just playing the game. I didn't see any risks at all and just from my personal tastes, it's boring to me.

__________________"Lets make one thing very clear here - Nolan's films are as faithful an adaptation as there is. It pays homage to its source material, remains true to its characters and above all else places the story first and foremost." - jmc

I don't understand the argument that Avengers was risky. They made sure they let audiences get used to each hero ahead of time so it was easier to digest. So everybody was familiar. They kept everything in the same tone even though Cap and Thor were different beasts from the others. As easy to digest as possible.

In 2008 the Avengers movie was risky. After the summer of 2011 it was a slam dunk.

I hate to break it to you guys, but once DC gets their own cinematic universe, there's not gonna be any sense of danger either. That's just the way it goes.

__________________

Quote:

"I knew there was something wrong, it just took a while to dawn on me, or maybe I was just afraid to think it, but you survived the destruction because you caused it. Raina wasn't the only one changed in there, and I'm pretty sure the DNA results that I'm running right now will confirm that there's nothing wrong with the data in my head Skye, there's something wrong with you."